Renting didn't happen due to repossession

clockworkboy

First of all, thanks to all the regular contributors for the brilliant threads on what to do when your rental flat is repossessed. We have a slightly different problem.

We met with a lettings agent a month ago, saw Flat A, liked it and handed over a holding deposit and reference check fee. All went fine for a couple of weeks. With just two days to go before getting the keys, the agent told us the landlord had discovered electrical problems with the flat and there would be a delay. Then a couple of days later, that the landlord had found damp problems. And while initially I was told I could paint the flat myself to our tastes, I was now told that these damp contractors wouldn't allow me due to insurance reasons. But the landlord had a Flat B in the same building, and suggested we move in there while the damp was sorted. At this point, we had a week in which to move flat rather than two full weeks, so the pressure was on.

We visited flat B and it wasn't as good, but not bad, and picked up the keys today, with full contract to be signed tomorrow. Except that when we passed Flat A, the door was nailed shut and there was a repossession notice pasted across it.

It's taking a while to get to the bottom of it, but it seems the landlord was hoping to buy back Flat A when he had the money and rent it to us. But we've also heard that he's had to default on other properties in the building.

The agent has has now said the landlord doesn't want to return the deposit as he'd done 'everything in his power' to get us another flat. I don't see what that matters, though -at the very least, he lied and lied about the electrical and damp problems, and it was only our curiosity led us to the truth. And I feel that there's every chance the agent didn't show due diligence in confirming the landlord could rent (or owned the property), and needing to reference check the tenants just seems laughable now. We weren't the problem.

So I feel we're due the full holding deposit, as we were mis-sold a property the LL didn't own. I'm also going to ask for the reference check fee, as that was unnecessary (and expensive). And we'd paid for a BT connection that BT won't refund, so we're down that too. Am I overreaching? I *also* took a week's unpaid leave to get the painting and moving done, and now I'm wondering if that should be something I claim too... or look at small claims. But I have no experience there at all.

I'm hopeful that I'm just enough of a pain in the bum that the agent washes his hands of it and pays us out of his own pocket.

Thanks.

Jenniefour

Did you sign a tenancy agreement? I would have thought that the LL/letting agents are in breach of contract anyway - you paid in good faith for a particular flat, agreed to accept another flat as a temporary alternative whilst repairs were carried out and it turns out that was just a story to cover up the fact the flat was on the brink of repossession. I would be very surprised if there wasn't some remedy for you here and hopefully one of good legal people will be responding soon.

And so you know what the exact position is regarding the flat you are now in?

BitterAndTwisted

I'm not sure that the agents could be totally at fault here. I can't see how they would have been aware that the property was in danger of repossession if the landlord was intent on hiding that fact from them. Seems that they've done what they could to have supplied an alternative property rather than you being left on the streets.

Trollfever

or look at small claims.

Who are you going to take to court?
The owner who lies and has no money or the letting agent who may have been an innocent victim?

clockworkboy

Thanks for the responses and reassurance.

Having looked at the Land Registry site, the property wasn't previously owned by the landlord - it's not the same surname, but could be a partner or somesuch. It could be argued that the agent didn't show due diligence in confirming the landlord owned the property. I mean, I don't have all the details so while we know it was repossessed yesterday, it can't have been a quick a process. At some point over the last month since we paid the holding deposit, the landlord either didn't mention this to the agent or the agent didn't tell us and assured us we'd be able to move in to the original flat eventually. But I can assure you I have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell...

We've also since heard that another property in the same building (with a different agent but same landlord) received letters from the creditor. One reason I didn't want to move into the alternative flat is I have no assurance it wouldn't be snatched away. Then we'd be down rent plus deposit and unable to move anywhere else. As it is, we'll just scrape it.

clockworkboy

Trollfever wrote: »

Who are you going to take to court?
The owner who lies and has no money or the letting agent who may have been an innocent victim?

True!

Except that the landlord owns a lot of property - dozens of flats - and is probably juggling repossession notices hoping cashflow improves. This will happen to other people, and I get a bit indignant at that.

I *think* the agent is innocent of this. But I know while established, he's inexperienced with introducing tenants to landlords (as opposed to managing his own properties) and I could argue he didn't do enough to confirm the property was available in the first place?

It hasn't helped that the agent has thrown up his hands and claimed it isn't his responsibility. He seems to me to be responsible for some of the mess. I sympathise, though.

clockworkboy

We've had a couple of exchanges with the agents today who want to foist us onto the landlord - they'll pay up a reference check fee, but shrug sorrowfully at returning the deposit etc. I'm going to give them a few days and see what happens.

But we've also had some legal advice and assistance flood in which is a pleasant surprise.

DVardysShadow

If this is the same landlord, then I would suggest that you don't sign the agreement - especially if you have only just seen the repo notice. It does not totally get you out of a tenancy, it just muddies the waters a bit. But I think you would be very wise to insist on proof that your landlord has the right to let the property and you could consider moving out on the basis of misrepresentation - but you would need to check your grounds carefully

clockworkboy

'Misrepresentation' is exactly the word I need to use. Nice one!

After a *really* intense Friday trawling Gumtree/Craigslist/Agency sites, we found another, bigger, nicer flat today. We're about to put down a deposit on that one, so there's a roof over our heads.

The agent hasn't been helpful, but we'll keep hassling him. And when we catch a breath, will at least get the CAB involved.

G_M

Since the agent says they will

pay up a reference check fee, but shrug sorrowfully at returning the deposit etc.

1) Get back the credit check fee that the agent has taken
2) the deposit is not the agents to give/return anyway - it is the landlord's. So write (WRITE) to the landlord (cc the agent) demanding your deposit back. The deposit was presumably taken for flat A. Flat A has not been provided. So the deposit should be returned. (I assume it is too soon for it to have been registered in a scheme?)
3) Do not sign any tenancy agreement
4) Find a new home, with a different LL, and preferably a different agent. If the LL is in trouble financially you have no security in ANY property he provides)

clockworkboy

We've had some to-ing and fro-ing with the agents over the weekend, returned the keys for Flat B and reiterated with them that we feel it's their responsibility to have confirmed that Flat A existed before giving the deposit to the landlord. We'd mentioned to them another property had been repossessed, and the (nonexistent) repair issues came out of the blue, so we feel they were negligent in not checking out Flat A.

But I take your point, G_M. I'm going to see what else the agent does and then get in touch with the landlord. I'm off to talk to the Citizen's Advice Bureau tomorrow, too.